Does is necessarily follow that those who relocate will take up the political point of view prevalent in the area they move to? This author seems to think so. I don't care for opinion shared as fact, and this article is just that. While the author may have crunched some numbers, raw data can be subject to various interpretations, and this story gives us only one. Reflecting on the votes for Bush v Kerry in 2004 and ignoring the congressional elections of 2006 is further evidence of bias in the analysis provided.

interesting that the negative reviews tend to attack his conclusions--is it because they do not like the facts?--not the facts. Barone is not one to leap to conclusions, rather takes Census Bureau facts and extrapolates from them...there is a difference.

Interesting story that adds detail to a known theme. Doesn't say where any of the data comes from, although I suspect some of it is from the U.S. Census Bureau's "Demographic Trends in the 20th Century" report. However, the article seems to infer migration patterns that the report does not address in sufficient detail, so I can't be sure. No basis for the "widening economic gap" claim, which actually looks suspicious to me.

altho i'm not sure if this is accurate information i assume it's close. the assumption seems to be that the internal moving population are small enough in percentages that it won't effect the voting percentages enough while adding to the congressional seats in those statesto which it moves. It is very interesting to ponder what this means. one question which may come up at some point is whether or not the electoral college system will be replaced in some of these states, which may alter his implied results.

Adding to Dale's point, there's an overlooked 1000 pound gorilla here that could spell quite the reverse phenomenon as seen in say, Colorado, with the highest college degrees per capita, mostly coming from other states, and turning the state bluer as a result. What this piece needed to show was that the right wing "heartland" population was primarily home-grown. That may be the case in some less attractive/fashionable places to move to, such as, say, Atlanta and Phoenix. Another ignored factor is the current political environment which plays into democratic hands, namely, the war, global warming, education and health care, which may keep turning red areas blue as evidenced in last election.

While I trust the demographic figures presented by Mr. Barone (despite his lack of attribution for many of them), I suspect his conclusions because of what he left out and because of his obvious rancor toward Democrats. As another Democratic activist who hasn't been near a Beverly Hills mansion in a very long time, I've had a different experience. Democrats are winning California Inland Empire seats because of the population shifts Barone notes. Democrats are moving into those districts and they are no longer safe Republican seats, but increasingly shaky ones. Also, the population of independent or decline-to-state voters continues to grow. Many of these may have been frightened into voting for Bush in 2004. I think 2006 shows ... More »

This article uses census data from 2000 and 2006 to discuss the implications of domestic and immigrant population movements within the US over the past 6 years. Mr. Barone extrapolates these shifts in population into their electoral college impacts assuming trends hold until the 2010 census. As he does not cite source on the extrapolated data, one has to assume he performed this work on his own. Given his qualifications (wikipedia michael barone-pundit), which are extensive to say the least, I think the other reviews citing weak sources are misplaced.

An interesting take on possible future demographic--and hence political -- changes in the American landscape.

This is statistical analysis of Census data. The author takes dry numbers and invigorates them, to explain what is in store for future elections.

While future prognostication isn't easy or accurate, this article does add some interesting context to the trending growth or reduction of various metropolitan areas, and what it could mean for the 2010 makeup of the House of Representatives.

Smears people on the left, who all live in mansions dontchyaknow. Cites no figures whatsoever in his claim that immigrant workers in cities are worse off than migrant workers in apple orchards. I guess since I moved out of orchard country, they must have switched it so that corporate farm owners live twenty to a shack and the workers get the nice big houses in the hills.

The devil is in the details and this report brings those details to the fore.

It provides a realistic view of population migrations within the US.

Barone editorializes & passes it off as "objectivity". He presents his own supposition as established fact, when it is nothing of the sort. The mere act of relocation does not cause people to abandon their political beliefs and adopt those of the area they immigrate into.